BOND -v- HODGSON [2013] WASC 257

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 257
Case No:	SJA:1126/2012	Heard:	5 JULY 2013
Coram:	HALL J	Delivered:	12/07/13
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LEE GLENYSE BOND PAUL RICHARD HODGSON
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction Speeding in a school zone Whether there was an error as to the time of the offence Whether the correct camera operator was called Whether there was any impropriety in witnesses remaining in court Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : BOND -v- HODGSON [2013] WASC 257 CORAM : HALL J HEARD : 5 JULY 2013 DELIVERED : 12 JULY 2013 FILE NO/S : SJA 1126 of 2012 BETWEEN : LEE GLENYSE BOND

Appellant

AND

PAUL RICHARD HODGSON

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE M M FLYNN

File No : AR 1361 of 2012

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Speeding in a school zone - Whether there was an error as to the time of the offence - Whether the correct camera operator was called - Whether there was any impropriety in witnesses remaining in court - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr P D Spragg

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

(Page 3)

HALL J

Introduction

1 On 20 September 2012 the appellant was convicted following a trial in the Armadale Magistrates Court on a charge of driving in excess of the speed limit in a school zone, contrary to s 11(6) of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA). She was fined $150 and ordered to pay costs. She now seeks leave to appeal against her conviction.

2 The appellant was self-represented both in the Magistrates Court and on appeal. Her grounds of appeal were short but cryptic. It became apparent at the hearing that her complaints were that there had been an error regarding the time of the incident, that the camera operator who gave evidence was not the operator who had been on duty at the time of the incident and that two witnesses had been permitted to be in court during the hearing in the Magistrates Court prior to giving their evidence.

3 For the reasons that follow none of the grounds of appeal has a reasonable prospect of succeeding. Accordingly, leave to appeal must be refused and the appeal dismissed.

The prosecution case

4 There are a number of schools adjacent to Forrest Road in Hilbert near Armadale. As a consequence, part of Forrest Road is designated as a school zone. This school zone is marked by signs both at the beginning and end and also by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bond v Hodgson

Details

AGLC: BOND -v- HODGSON [2013] WASC 257
Case: [2013] WASC 257
Decision Date: 12 JULY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bond v Hodgson was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the appellant sought to challenge their conviction for speeding in a school zone. The conviction was based on evidence gathered by a speed camera. The appellant argued that there were several errors in the proceedings that warranted an appeal, including the accuracy of the timestamp on the camera evidence, the identification of the correct camera operator, and the conduct of witnesses during the trial. The court was tasked with determining whether these issues warranted overturning the conviction.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court involved the admissibility and reliability of the speed camera evidence, as well as procedural fairness during the trial. The court had to consider whether the timestamp on the camera evidence was accurate, ensuring that the offence occurred within the specified time period. Furthermore, it was crucial to determine if the correct individual responsible for operating the camera was called to testify, as this could impact the credibility of the evidence presented. Additionally, the court needed to assess if there was any impropriety in the witnesses remaining in the courtroom during the proceedings, which might have influenced the trial's outcome.

In its reasoning, the court examined each of the appellant's claims meticulously. Regarding the timestamp, the court found no evidence of tampering or inaccuracies in the camera's internal clock, affirming the reliability of the timestamp. Concerning the camera operator, the court confirmed that the correct individual was indeed called to testify, thus upholding the integrity of the evidence. The court also scrutinised the conduct of the witnesses and found no procedural impropriety that could have prejudiced the appellant. Consequently, the court concluded that the trial was conducted fairly, and all legal standards were met. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the original conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.